DOCSLIB.ORG

Scenario for Modeling Changes in Radiological Conditions in Contaminated Urban Environments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scenario for Modeling Changes in Radiological Conditions in Contaminated Urban Environments Scenario for modeling changes in radiological conditions in contaminated urban environments Pripyat, Districts 1 and 4 Phase A: Undisturbed urban environment with no human activity Phase B: Urban environment with human activity Phase C: Urban environment with effects of remediation activities EMRAS Urban Remediation Working Group Kiev – Vienna May 2006 1 Contents I. Introduction II. Background II.1 Description of the town of Pripyat II.2 Structure of the urban area II.3 Type of soil and vegetation II.4 Building types II.5 Population and activities III. Contamination IV. Decontamination activities V. Input information (deposition data) VI. Additional data for use in calibration VII. Modeling endpoints VIII. References Figures Appendix—Dormitory 1986 data Additional information (Excel workbook) Table 1. Information about the buildings in Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat. Table 2. Meteorological data for the Chornobyl station, 26 April-30 June 1986. Table 3. Meteorological data for the Chornobyl station, July 1986-July 1998. Tables 4-9. Additional meteorological data. Table 10. Dose rate measurements made in Pripyat during 26-27 April 1986. Table 11. Isolines of dose rate for 26 April 1986, 12:00 (noon), in or near Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat. Table 12. Isolines of dose rate for 26 April 1986, 24:00 (midnight), in or near Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat. Table 13. Isolines of dose rate for 27 April 1986, 12:00 (noon), in or near Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat. Table 14. Isolines of dose rate for 27 April 1986, 17:00 (5:00 pm), in or near Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat. Table 15. Dose rate measurements made in or near Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat during the summer of 1986. Table 16. Summary of major decontamination activities carried out in the town of Pripyat. Table 17. Contribution of different radionuclides to the value of the exposure dose rate in Pripyat. Table 18. Air contamination in the town of Pripyat in 1989-1991. Table 19. Measured deposition in Pripyat (Districts 1 and 4). Table 20. Vertical distributions of activity in soil (District 1). Table 21. Air gamma measurements made in or near Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat in 1991 (137Cs). Table 22. Occupancy factors for urban populations. Table 23. Map locations of test points in Districts 1 and 4 of Pripyat (Figs. 14 and 15). Table A-1. Information about the buildings in District 1a of Pripyat. Table A-2. Results of radiometric survey in District 1a in October 1986. Formats for model predictions (Phases A, B, and C). 2 I. Introduction The overall objective of the EMRAS Urban Remediation Working Group is to test and improve the prediction of dose rates and cumulative doses to humans for urban areas contaminated with dispersed radionuclides, including (a) prediction of changes in radionuclide concentrations or dose rates as a function of location and time, (b) identification of the most important pathways for human exposure, and (c) prediction of the reduction in radionuclide concentrations or dose rates expected to result from various countermeasures or remediation efforts. The present scenario is based on Chornobyl (Chernobyl) fallout data for Pripyat, a town in Ukraine which was evacuated soon after the Chornobyl accident and has remained essentially uninhabited. The scenario is designed to allow modeling in three phases. Phase A provides an opportunity to model the changes over time of external exposure rates and concentrations of radionuclides in different compartments of an urban environment due primarily to natural processes. This phase uses information on District 1 of Pripyat. Phase B provides an opportunity to model changes over time of similar endpoints in a situation that includes the effects of human activity. This phase uses information on District 4 of Pripyat, which was inhabited for a time after the Chornobyl accident. Phase C provides an opportunity to model the effects of various remediation efforts on the changes over time of the radiological situation. This phase also uses information on District 4 of Pripyat. A set of input information (measurements of deposition and of radionuclide composition) are provided for use for all phases of the scenario, to provide a common starting point. Some additional data are provided for use in model calibration for participants desiring to do so. Test data (measurements) are available for some modeling endpoints; additional endpoints will also be used for model intercomparison. This document provides information about the situation to be modeled (input information) and a list of the endpoints to be modeled. Note that all tables are provided in an accompanying Excel workbook. Data in GIS format (MapInfo or ESRI formats) are also available. 3 II. Background In the context of urban radioecological study, the main interest is what radioactive fallout resulted, and when and where it fell out during the active phase of the Chornobyl accident. According to a number of assessments, the series of heat explosions in the fourth Chornobyl power unit were caused by actions of the operating staff and due to the nuclear-physical conditions that arose and to the constructional peculiarities of the nuclear reactor [Baryakhtar, 1997]. The safety system of the reactor and its building were destroyed. Products of nuclear fuel processing and of the reactor constructional materials were released to the environment. The largest releases continued for 10 days until May 6, 1986, and their distribution depended on fractional composition, height of elevation in the atmosphere, and meteorological conditions near the reactor and in regions where the radioactive clouds passed [Izrael, 1990; Baryakhtar, 1997]. The first radioactive cloud, which had formed during the explosion, under conditions of steady night weather, was elevated to 300-500 m height and went to the west, creating a long (up to 100 km) and almost straight, narrow trace [Izrael, 1990]. It passed south of Pripyat’s residential buildings by 1.5-2 km. This trace fallout contained many unoxidized fuel particles, some of which were very large (up to 10-100 µm) and were deposited along the first kilometers of the cloud’s path [Kashparov, 2001]. Also, at the moment of the explosion, almost all of the reactor’s noble gases were released into the atmosphere [Izrael, 1990]. Further, during natural fuel heat-up and graphite stack burning (up to 1800-2000 °K), a spurt of radioactive releases was elevated to 1000-1200 m height and directed to the northwest [Izrael, 1990; Baryakhtar, 1997], bending around Pripyat. They were enriched by highly mobile, volatile radionuclides (I, Te, Cs) and finely dispersed, oxidized fuel particles (1-3 µm). In the surface layer of the atmosphere, the air current was transferred mainly to the west and southwest directions. By noon of April 26, the plume reached the settlement of Polesskoe and crossed it by a narrow trace. The dose rate1 reached 0.1-0.6 mR/h there (in some places, 2.0 mR/h) [Nad’yarnyh et al., 1989]. On April 27, the north and northwest directions of surface air currents prevailed. This caused a quick worsening of the radiation situation in Pripyat. On April 26, the radiation level in the town was 0.014-0.13 R/h, but by the evening of April 27, this level had reached 0.4-1.0 R/h, and in some places, 1.5 R/h [Baryakhtar, 1997] (by other data, up to 4-7 R/h [Repin, 1995]). During the period of 14:00-16:30, all of the town’s residents were evacuated. The strongest radioactive fallout occurred along the eastern outskirts of the town. Although during that time the releases were enriched by small particle aerosols with sublimated radionuclides, there were also some heavy combustion products which precipitated on the closest territories, including Pripyat’s surroundings. On April 28-29, the radioactive releases began to lose height (600 m) and activity, and the transfer turned gradually to the northeast [Izrael, 1990]. Because of a considerable decrease of reactor core temperature, the intensity of the radioactive releases gradually dropped by April 30 (up to 6 times [Izrael, 1990]). This promoted the intensive oxidizing of fuel [Kashparov, 2001] and determined the character of further releases. As a result of the first countermeasures undertaken, the reactor core was very filled up, which made heat exchange worse and contributed to a new active stage of the accident. Starting May 2-3, 1986, the reactor core warmed up again. Radioactive releases had a large fraction of dispersed oxidized fuel particles. Because the prevailing direction of air currents had changed since the afternoon of April 29, the main plumes of the Chornobyl 1 For purposes of this scenario, assume that “R” refers to Roentgen for measurements made in 1986 and to Rad for measurements made in 1987 or later. 4 fallout lay to the south [Izrael, 1990]. That continued till May 6, 1986, when the intensity of the releases dropped to 1% of the initial amount and less. Further radioactive releases continued to decrease, and had almost ended by May 25, 1986 [Izrael, 1990]. Thus, the Chornobyl accident and the following spread of radioactive releases caused contamination of broad territories in Europe, including several urban areas. Deposition from the accident contained a wide spectrum of nuclear fission products, activation products, and transuranium elements. Fallout in the town of Pripyat was mainly in the form of finely dispersed fuel. The total level of deposition reached up to 80-24000 kBq/m2 of 137Cs, 50- 6660 kBq/m2 of 90Sr, and 1.5-200 kBq/m2 of 239+240Pu [Baryakhtar et al., 2003]2. Deposition data for the specific districts of Pripyat considered in this scenario are discussed later. II.1. Description of the town of Pripyat The town of Pripyat was established in 1970 (on the place of a village called Semykhody and close to a village called Novoshepelychy) as a town for the staff and builders of the Chornobyl NPP and related facilities and services.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Present and Future Environmental Impact of the Chernobyl Accident
    IAEA-TECDOC-1240 Present and future environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident Study monitored by an International Advisory Committee under the project management of the Institut de protection et de sûreté nucléaire (IPSN), France August 2001 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Waste Safety Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria PRESENT AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT IAEA, VIENNA, 2001 IAEA-TECDOC-1240 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2001 Printed by the IAEA in Austria August 2001 FOREWORD The environmental impact of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident has been extensively investigated by scientists in the countries affected and by international organizations. Assessment of the environmental contamination and the resulting radiation exposure of the population was an important part of the International Chernobyl Project in 1990–1991. This project was designed to assess the measures that the then USSR Government had taken to enable people to live safely in contaminated areas, and to evaluate the measures taken to safeguard human health there. It was organized by the IAEA under the auspices of an International Advisory Committee with the participation of the Commission of the European Communities (CEC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The IAEA has also been engaged in further studies in this area through projects such as the one on validation of environmental model predictions (VAMP) and through its technical co-operation programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Egzemplarz Bezpłatny (PDF)
    Turystyka historyczna Tom 2 Turystyka historyczna Tom 2 pod redakcją Zbigniewa Hojki i Krzysztofa Nowaka Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego • Katowice 2020 Recenzenci Tomasz Przerwa Tadeusz Siwek Rada Naukowa Andriej Kharuk (Lviv), Eugeniusz Kłosek (Wrocław), Rastislav Kožiak (Banská Bystrica), Magdalena Nowak (Gdańsk), Dariusz Rolnik (Katowice), Jan Rychlík (Praha), Henryk Walczak (Szczecin), Aleš Zářický (Ostrava) Rada Redakcyjna Piotr Boroń, Maciej Fic, Wacław Gojniczek, Zbigniew Hojka, Joanna Januszewska‑Jurkiewicz, Lech Krzyżanowski, Dorota Malczewska‑Pawelec, Krzysztof Nowak, Aleksandra Skrzypietz Spis treści Wprowadzenie (Zbigniew Hojka, Krzysztof Nowak) 7 I. Z dziejów podróżowania i turystyki Ewa Wala Rozwój turystyki w Karpatach Wschodnich do 1914 roku (w świetle przewodników i „Pamiętników Towarzystwa Tatrzańskiego”) 11 II. Z dziejów ruchu pątniczego Vladyslav Rozhkov Cudami słynąca Matka Boża Latyczowska – Pani Podola, Wołynia i Lublina 49 III. Na współczesnych szlakach historii Wiesław Kaczanowicz Vindolanda – z badań nad historią rzymskiej Brytanii 63 Zbigniew Bereszyński Turystyczne walory zabytków budownictwa obronnego na Górnym Śląsku 82 Ariel Ciechański, Judyta Kurowska‑Ciechańska Parowozownia Skierniewice jako element inspiracji turystów historią kolei 106 Krzysztof Nowak Turystyka historyczna na pograniczach – pozytywna energia Czerniowiec 118 6 Spis treści Iwona Fischer Szlakiem postaci historycznej – alternatywna trasa turystyczna w mieście z nad- miarem zabytków (na przykładzie Krakowa, licznych w tym mieście szlaków znanych osób, a w szczególności szlaku śladami Ignacego Jana Paderew- skiego) 135 Maciej Miezian Nowa Huta – fragment Górnego Śląska na terenie Małopolski 149 Maja Murawska Cmentarz jako produkt turystyczny na przykładzie cmentarzy mennonickich na Żuławach 162 Mariusz Solarz Fort Skotniki na szlaku Twierdzy Kraków. Działalność Centrum Dokumentacji Zsyłek, Wypędzeń i Przesiedleń 172 Adrian Rams Obóz dwóch totalitaryzmów. Jaworzno 1943–1956 jako miejsce pamięci.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF: Transforming Chernobyl
    The works to transform Chernobyl into a safe and on the ground. Total costs for the Shelter secure state are nearing conclusion. The New Implementation Plan – of which the NSC is the Safe Confinement (NSC), a gigantic steel arch, most prominent element – were estimated to be has been erected and is now being equipped €2.1 billion in 2014, leaving a large funding gap with systems and tools to make the site safe for of €615 million. generations to come. The EBRD shareholders’ decision in November Impressive progress has been made and we are 2014 to commit an additional €350 million confident that the NSC will be completed and (from the Bank’s reserves) for the NSC and operational by the end of 2017. an anticipated €165 million from the G7/ European Commission have significantly The Chernobyl project would not have been reduced the funding gap. However, a shortfall of possible without the active involvement and €100 million remains. generous contributions of the international community and Ukraine. The fact that to date Ukraine is currently in a vulnerable state and more than 40 countries and the EBRD have cannot be left to bear this uniquely hazardous provided funds speaks for itself. burden alone. The EBRD welcomes the leadership of the G7 to secure the full funding As the project is now far-advanced it is possible of the project. to make a reliable cost estimate based on the final design of the NSC and the progress Suma Chakrabarti, EBRD President PART OF A LARGER The New Safe Confinement (NSC) is a structure intended to the international community’s work together with Ukraine cover the destroyed reactor unit 4 at Chernobyl, the site of got under way.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident : Its Decommissioning, The
    The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident : its decommissioning, the Interim Spent Fuel Storage ISF-2, the nuclear waste treatment plants and the Safe Confinement project. by Dr. Ing. Fulcieri Maltini Ph.D. SMIEEE, life, PES, Comsoc FM Consultants Associates, France Keywords Nuclear power, Disaster engineering, Decommissioning, Waste management & disposal, Buildings, structures & design. Abstract On April 26, 1986, the Unit 4 of the RBMK nuclear power plant of Chernobyl, in Ukraine, went out of control during a test at low-power, leading to an explosion and fire. The reactor building was totally demolished and very large amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere for several hundred miles around the site including the nearby town of Pripyat. The explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste and spent fuel residues without any protection and control. Several square kilometres were totally contaminated. Several hundred thousand people were affected by the radiation fall out. The radioactive cloud spread across Europe affecting most of the northern, eastern, central and southern Europe. The initiative of the G7 countries to launch an important programme for the closure of some Soviet built nuclear plants was accepted by several countries. A team of engineers was established within the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development were a fund was provided by the donor countries for the entire design, management of all projects and the plants decommissioning. The Chernobyl programme includes the establishment of a safety strategy for the entire site remediation and the planning for the plant decommissioning. Several facilities that will process and store the spent fuel and the radioactive liquid and solid waste as well as to protect the plant damaged structures have been designed and are under construction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
    THE CONGRESS Appendix OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL T�e Sl�vut��� Appe�l AUTHORITIES l�un��ed �� t�e Inte�n�tion�l �onfe�en�e “��e�no��l 20 �e��s on lo��l �nd �egion�l �ut�o�ities de�ling wit� dis�ste�s” Resolution 215 (2006)1 Slavutych (Ukraine), 2-4 March 2006 on ��e�no��l 20 �e������s on lo��l We, �nd �egion�l �ut�o�ities de�ling wit� dis�ste�s The participants in the International Conference “Chernobyl, 20 years on: local and regional authorities dealing with disasters”, local and regional elected representatives, parliamentarians and representatives of . The date of 26 April 2006 marked the 20th anniversary governments, international and non-governmental of the unprecedented catastrophe in the history of mankind organisations and experts, which took place at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Meeting in Slavutych on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, 2. The consequences of the Chernobyl disaster have long been a subject of speculation and the issue is a no less Resolve to adopt an appeal, which will be forwarded to the topical subject today, which is why the Congress decided to Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council hold a conference on “Chernobyl, 20 years on: local and of Europe and to other interested organisations. regional authorities dealing with disasters” in Slavutych in Ukraine, from 2 to 4 March 2006. Here in Slavutych, some 50 kilometres from Chernobyl and twenty years after the worst technological disaster in the history of humankind, we feel the need to solemnly 3.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Chernobyl Accident... More Than 1.8 Million People Still Inhabit the Contaminated Territories
    ALEGRIA MONTORO PASTOR (PhD) Laboratorio de Dosimetría Biológica Servicio de Protección Radiológica WHY? After the Chernobyl accident... More than 1.8 million people still inhabit the contaminated territories. 502,377 children, residents of Ukraine, were born in families where the parents have been exposed to ionizing radiation. Countries from EU offer hosting programs for Ukranian Non-Government Organization which has a program of hosting children Ukranian children with families from Valencia (Spain). Our biodosimetry laboratory reviewed the literature in order to obtain more information on the level of human hazard due to such accidental exposure: Various cytogenetic studies reported an increased frequency of chromosomal aberrations in children from contaminated areas (Padovani et al. 1997; Barale et al. 1998). WHO found in a report (2006) a complete lack of analytical studies (Stepanova et al. 2008). One proven way to obtain information related to the absorbed radiation dose is to quantify the cytogenetic effects. OBJECTIVES To assess whether the children living in the areas contaminated by the Chernobyl accident are exposed to ionizing radiation... Started a collaboration program to assess the radiation dose absorbed by children living near Chernobyl as NGO (Spain) Biodosimetry laboratory well as the health and nutritional (Hospital La Fe, Spain) status. The aim of this study was to carry out a cytogenetic analysis of 55 Ukrainian children and adolescents living in the Chernobyl area and whose parents were exposed to ionizing radiation due to the nuclear accident. For this purpose we carried out a dicentric chromosome assay to elucidate a possible exposure to radiation from different contaminated sources.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Pripyat
    CITY CITY OF PRIPYAT building site 40 OF PRIPYAT Palace of pioneers Prip Gr (uncompleted) 36 eenhouse t 42 38 Kindergarten y ospek Kopachi a 34 t elnikiv Pr Greenhouse Budiv Building of an 17 28 5 Elementary experimental 13 N Lelev 32 School Nr. 5 greenhouse farm 15 26 7 22 V Microdistrict 13 30 32a Chernobyl Parishev unfinished 24 Café Snack bar 1a object 12 1 9 Daycare 21 two 16-storey transformer centre Malysh Kindergarten Zalissya Kindergarten buildings 5 9 Cheburashka Yablonka 10 3 19 Ger 8a since 1986 8/10 3 16 7 oiv St Radek laboratory Avandgard Public toilet 9. alingr transformer 7 1 3a Stadium 14 8 ada Str 6. 3 Kutovary shop - 1 3 Commercial N recreaonal goods 4 58 Kindergarten bedminton housing ee playground Nr. 13 Goldfish greenhouse t 2 t 60 8 Sporvna Stree unfinished Naber damaged carousel house Café 0 10 km t IV Microdistrict 1 6 56 Olympia e Elementary 5 zhna Str 54 ospek School Nr. 4 Kindergarten 4 unfinished 10 Switchboard 19 Hostel Nr. 19 ee Riverport Heang Skazka Family Amusement Park t two 16-storey family hostel unit 2a hostels Nr. 15 & 16 One of the most radioacve Landing stage (houseboat) buildings 11 Cinema elnikiv Pr 5a 13 areas in town The half-sunk landing, 6. 17 Dormitory of the Prometey 7 48a 9 Consumer services that earlier stood in the vocaonal technical 4 Café Pripyat Sanatorium 52 Budiv Kindergarten centre Yubileyny riverside staon. 8 school Nr. 8 transformer 4a 4 Vocaonal Music School Nr.14 - Lazurny 7 General substaon Ogneva Street Serzhan Technical 46a store 11 Swimming 6.
    [Show full text]
  • European Amazonia Nature-Based Tourism Development Scenario for Polesia
    European Amazonia Nature-based tourism development scenario for Polesia © Daniel Rosengren/FZS #VisitPolesia December 2019 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Aims................................................................................................................................................ 4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1. Destination Polesia ................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Tourism on protected areas .............................................................................................. 9 1.2 Wildlife and birdwatching tourism ................................................................................... 13 1.3 Nuclear tourism ............................................................................................................... 15 1.4 Cultural heritage of Poleshuks ........................................................................................ 17 1.5 Agritourism....................................................................................................................... 19 1.6 Flood tourism ................................................................................................................... 21 2. Profiles of potential nature-based tourists ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENTIFIC YEARBOOK Issue Twelve
    SCIENTIFIC YEARBOOK Issue Twelve Compilers Leonid Guberskiy, Pavlo Kryvonos, Borys Gumenyuk, Anatoliy Denysenko, Vasyl Turkevych Kyiv • 2011 ББК 66.49(4УКР)я5+63.3(4УКР)Оя5 UKRAYINA DYPLOMATYCHNA (Diplomatic Ukraine) SCIENTIFIC AN NUALLY Issued since November 2000 THE TWELFTH ISSUE Founders: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Diplomatic Academy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine General Directorate for Servicing Foreign Representations Historical Club Planeta The issue is recommended for publishing by the Scientific Council of the Diplomatic Academyat the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Protocol No of September 28, 2011 р. Publisher: General Directorate for Servicing Foreign Representations Chief Editor Anatoliy Denysenko, PhD (history) Deputy chief editors: Borys Humenyuk, Doctor of History, Vasyl Turkevych, Honored Art Worker of Ukraine Leonid Schlyar, Doctor of Political Sciences Executive editor: Volodymyr Denysenko, Doctor of History ISBN 966-7522-07-5 EDITORIAL BOARD Kostyantyn Gryschenko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Leonid Guberskiy, Rector of the T.G. Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Doctor of Philosophy Borys Humenyuk, Rector of the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine under the MFA of Ukraine, Deputy Chief Editor Volodymyr Khandogiy, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Volodymyr Yalovyi, Deputy Head of the VR Staff of Ukraine Oleh Bilorus, Head of the VR Committee of Ukraine for Foreign
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl Experience in the Field of Retrospective Dosimetry
    CHERNOBYL EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF RETROSPECTIVE DOSIMETRY Vadim Chumak and Elena Bakhanova Research Center for Radiation Medicine AMS Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine [email protected] INTRODUCTION The Chernobyl accident, which occurred on April 26, 1986 at the nuclear power plant (NPP) located less than 150 km north of Kiev, is the largest nuclear accident ever. Unprecedented scale of the accident was determined not only by the amount of released activity, but also by a number of population and workers involved and, therefore, exposed to enhanced doses of ionising radiation [1]. The population of the 30-km exclusion zone numbering about 116,000 persons of all ages and both genders was evacuated within days and weeks after the accident. Emergency workers called "liquidators of the accident" or liquidators (males age 20-50) were involved into clean-up and recovery for 5 years and their total number is estimated as 600,000, of whom about 300,000 are Ukrainian citizens [2]. Due to an unexpected and excessively large scale accident, none of residents had personal dosimeters, coverage with personal dosimetry of liquidators was not total, dosimetry techniques and practices were far from the optimum [3]. As a result, an acute need for retrospective dose assessment was dictated by radiation protection and research considerations. This need was responded by implementation of wide scale dose reconstruction efforts, which covered main exposed cohorts and encompassed broad variety of newly developed methods: analytical (time-and-motion), modelling, biological and physical (EPR spectroscopy of teeth, thermoluminescence (TL) of quartz). The paper summarizes experience of Research Center for Radiation Medicine (RCRM) in the field of retrospective dosimetry of large cohorts of exposed population and professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavutych Atomograd As the Last Ideal City of the USSR: Challenges and Adaptation Mechanisms of Resilience
    GeoJournal https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10236-x (0123456789().,-volV)( 0123456789().,-volV) Slavutych atomograd as the last ideal city of the USSR: Challenges and adaptation mechanisms of resilience Stanley D. Brunn . Olena Dronova . Olena Kononenko Ó Springer Nature B.V. 2020 Abstract Urban resilience implies the ability of all management practices, stimulating innovations in components of a city system to maintain or restore nuclear/alternative energy, IT, and cultural/artistic their functions following unforeseen events, and the events. Urban management and planning systems ability to adapt to external changes. We apply the remain active and are ongoing. concept of resilience and adaptation to Slavutych atomograd following the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Keywords Urban resilience Á Chornobyl nuclear Station explosion. Challenges and responses facing power station Á Urban development threats and the urban management and planning systems are challenges Á Ukraine examined. Perceptions of Slavutych’s resilience capacity are integrated into research based on a survey of residents. The main challenges faced were lack of targeted financing; insufficient economic diversifica- ‘‘Resilience is a complex, multi-dimensional tion and professional employment opportunities; an challenge for urban sustainability planning and aging population and outmigration of youth and design.’’ (Ahern 2011, p.8) professionals; physical remoteness from the Kyiv Region; declining quality of municipal infrastructure, ‘‘Resilience means constantly shedding declining poor housing and community services; and slow industries and replacing them with new ones. It is in introduction of market mechanisms. Resilience poten- the very nature of cities to constantly transform tial formation is used in effective municipal their economic base.’’ (Pole`se 2010,p.13) ‘‘Even though social processes across the globe are increasingly being theorised through a S.
    [Show full text]
  • Social-Economic Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe
    Social-economic Consequences of the Chornobyl Catastrophe Volodymyr Kholosha First Deputy Chief of State Department– Administration of Exclusion Zone and Zone of Absolute (Compulsory) Resettlement 1. Introduction The largest in its scale and consequences man-caused catastrophe that took place on April 26 1986 on the # 4 Reactor at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became national tragedy, condemned millions of people to sufferings, and showed how unprotected was the state in the face of global disaster in peace-time. The Chornobyl NPP disaster was responsible for serious economic losses within the former Soviet Union and beyond. The accident disrupted production as well as the normal activities of daily life in many areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russian Federation. In Ukraine, it led to a significant loss of electrical power production and a direct impact on the regional industrial economy. Further, it caused substantial damage to the agricultural economy and limited the use of the area's forests and waterways (use restrictions were imposed on 5,120 km2 of farmland and 4,920 km2 of forest). For the entire Ukraine population, the reduction in the Gross National Product and the loss of monies that could have been spent on improving health care and preventive medicine, and in other areas to promote general health and well- being was a significant blow. In 1986, approximately 116,000 persons were evacuated from areas with radiation level higher than 5 mRem per hour. This evacuation required the construction of additional housing for the evacuees. Approximately 15,000 apartments; several living quarters with a total capacity exceeding 1,000 persons; 23,000 houses; and approximately 800 social and cultural institutions were constructed during 1986 and 1987.
    [Show full text]